There is reportedly a letter by Elder George B. Starr in which he states that Sister White said: “I will tell you who Melchisedec was. He was the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, who took the form of humanity and represented the Lord Jesus Christ to that generation.” This report is questionable to me for at least two reasons: (1) it was made in 1924, nine years after Sister White died and several more years after the meeting occurred and, (2) concerning such reports, Sister White stated:
“The cases mentioned will serve to show how little reliance can be placed upon reports concerning what I have done or taught. … Beware how you give credence to such reports. … And now to all who have a desire for truth I would say: Do not give credence to unauthenticated reports as to what Sister White has done or said or written. If you desire to know what the Lord has revealed through her, read her published works. Are there any points of interest concerning which she has not written, do not eagerly catch up and report rumors as to what she has said.” – 5T 694-696.
As I “read her published works” concerning Melchizedek, I find that she never identifies Melchizedek as the Holy Spirit. In fact, I find that she identifies him as a man. “It was Christ that spoke through Melchizedek, the priest of the most high God. Melchizedek was not Christ, but he was the voice of God in the world, the representative of the Father. And all through the generations of the past, Christ has spoken; Christ has led his people, and has been the light of the world. When God chose Abraham as a representative of his truth, he took him out of his country, and away from his kindred, and set him apart.” – RH, February 18, 1890 par. 10.
In the content of this of statement, Sister White is referring to several men whom God used to speak His message in their generation. If Christ spoke through Melchizedek, and Melchizedek was the Holy Spirit, then we would have to say that Christ inspired the Holy Spirit. This, of course, is not Biblical because it is the Holy Spirit that inspires men. How could Christ inspire that which is already the inspiration of God? It is also noteworthy that she does not capitalize the word “representative” when referring to Melchizedek. Which, if Melchizedek was the Holy Spirit, she would have done as she did several sentences later in referring to Christ. “The light of the glory of God shone upon our Representative, and this fact says to us that the glory of God may shine upon us.” – Review & Herald, February 18, 1890 par. 12. I would also clarify that Sister White does not capitalize the word representative in every reference to Christ. However, a few other statements from Sister White’s published works reveal Melchizedek as a man. “God has never left Himself without witness on the earth. At one time Melchizedek represented the Lord Jesus Christ in person, to reveal the truth of heaven, and perpetuate the law of God.” –Bible Commentary, vol.1, p. 1092.
“Many persons will meet all inferior demands and dues, and leave to God only the last gleanings, if there be any. If not, his cause must wait till a more convenient season. Such was not the course pursued by Abraham. Upon his return from a successful military expedition, he was met by Melchizedek, “king of Salem, and priest of the most high God.” This holy man blessed Abraham, in the name of the Lord, and the patriarch gave him tithes of all the spoils as a tribute of gratitude to the Ruler of nations.” – Review & Herald, May 16, 1882 par. 24.
“Melchizedek, in bestowing the benediction upon Abraham, had acknowledged Jehovah as the source of his strength and the author of the victory: ‘Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: and blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.’” Genesis 14:19, 20. – Patriarchs & Prophets, p. 157.
These statements lead me to believe that Melchizedek was a man and not the Holy Spirit. There are also writings from other pioneers as well as one from Arthur White, Sister White’s grandson, which shows that our pioneers, including Ellen White, did not believe or teach that Melchizedek was the Holy Spirit. For example, in the year 1966, Arthur White addressed the report mentioned above, and he totally refuted such a report: “For many years there have come to us for verification a number of statements based purely upon memory. One of these has to do with the identity of Melchizedek. In a committee meeting held in Australia, Mrs. White is supposed to have stated just who Melchizedek was. Such information would certainly be very helpful if we could rely upon it. In an endeavor to check the accuracy of this memory statement, our office, some years ago, reached the principal party named in the interview, and he denied that Mrs. White had said that which the other worker asserted she had said. Inasmuch as the discussion concerned something this brother had written, it stands to reason that his memory of what was said would be more likely to be true. So there it stands. One godly man gives us from his memory Mrs. White’s statement, identifying Melchizedek; another man present at the same interview says she did not say that. Nor did others present have any memory of having heard her say it. In all her writings, published and unpublished, there is nothing to corroborate the report. Our counsel is that such statements should not be used as representing Mrs. White’s teachings.” – The Ministry Magazine, December 1966, pp. 4, 5.
Another statement worth mentioning is from J.N. Andrews. In commenting on Hebrews 7:3-8 concerning the genealogy of Melchizedek, Andrews (and other pioneers) held the following position: “We have seen that they cannot be taken in an absolute sense; for they involve us in contradiction and absurdity. But if they are taken in a limited sense, and interpreted according to the manner of speaking that was usual with the Hebrews, we shall find them easy of explanation. The Hebrews kept very exact genealogical registers. Particularly was this the case respecting their priests; for if the priest could not trace his genealogy back to Aaron, he was not allowed to serve in the priesthood. Those who could not show their record in such tables were said to be without father and mother, and without descent. This did not signify that they had no ancestors, but that the record of them was not preserved. This is exactly the case of Melchisedec. He is introduced in Genesis without any record of his parentage, the Holy Spirit having purposely omitted that matter. He is said by Paul to have no beginning of days, nor end of life. This does not mean absolutely that there was no beginning of existence with him, for it is only true of one being in the universe, viz, God the Father. But the evident meaning of the apostle is this: that no record of his birth or of his death appears in the history which is given us of him. He appears without any intimation given us of his origin; and the story of this priest of the Most High ends without any record of his death. These things were purposely omitted that he might be used to represent, as perfectly as possible, the priesthood of the Son of God. And so the same Spirit of inspiration that led Moses to withhold these, particulars concerning Melchisedec, did also lead Paul to use that omission to illustrate the priesthood of Christ. We would do well to leave the case of Melchisedec just where the Scriptures leave it.” – J.N. Andrews, Advent Review & Sabbath Herald, September 7, 1869, p. 4.
With this and other statements in mind, we hope the truth concerning Melchizedek stands clear. Melchizedek was not the Holy Spirit. Rather, he was “king of Salem … and the priest of the most high God.” He was “the representative of the Father” and a “holy man” who blessed Abraham. Friends, we must be diligent students of the scriptures. Yet, we must take the Bible just as it reads and understand the simple truths contained therein. Maranatha!
